The Slave Power

[unionblue]

Trenton Gazette, Jan. 3, 1861.

"The present attempt at a forcible dissolution of the Union, is the result of a conspiracy which has been brooded upon and actively conducted by ambitious men for nearly thirty years past--sometimes elated by prospects of success, sometimes chagrined by unexpected defeat, they have, since 1832, steadily pushed on their plot, recruited their forces, and at last, confident in their strength, they have openly announced their plans, and defied resistance to their execution. Their aim is to found a Southen Empire, which shall be composed of the Southern States, Mexico, Central America, and Cuba, of which the arch-conspirators are to be the rulers."

Unionblue

[Alabaman]

Neil,

Again, sir, while I have read your newspaper post denouncing the South with it's perceived actions from 1832 on, I'd appreciate to hear your personal comment upon your take on this newspaper writer's commentary? I've never put much faith, as you can tell from my previous posts, to the words of newspapers or their alotted personalized perceptions contained within their rhetorical and often esoteric commentary. Please enlighten me with your personal elaboration of your news post, Neil. I'd apprecate it. Thanks once again.

Respectfully,
Alabaman

[unionblue]

Pennsylvania newspaper article, 1859.

"Thirty years ago they rubbed out part of the line, and said [to the Slave Trader], "You may go into the lands of the South, but not into the lands of the North." This was the Missouri Compromise. Five years ago they rubbed out the rest of the line, and said to him, "We leave it to the Settlers to decide whether you shall come in or not." This was the Nebraska Bill. Now they turn humbly to him, hat in hand, and say, "Go where you please, the land is all yours, the National flag shall protect you, and the National Troops shoot down whoever resists you." This is the Dred Scott decision."

The Missouri Compromise (1820)
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=22

Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=28

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=29

The newspaper article I have submitted with this post refers to three historical recorded events. I have listed three sections of a website that has transcripts of each of the historical documents mentioned in the above article. To view the documents in their entirety, click on the 'document transcript' button.

I submit that not all newspaper articles of the time were without substance or truth.

Unionblue

[MobileBoy]

Neil,
I'd have to echo Rob's concerns.You seemed to discount Southern newspapers complaining vehemently about the tarrif as well as Northern newspapers which complained vehemently about Lincoln's suppression of free speech.Why is this newspaper any more credible than the others discounted?

[olerebel]

Unionblue- Be careful with LSU printings, they may not be politically correct.

[unionblue]

Alabaman & MobileBoy,

Show me a Southern newspaper that can be backed up with historical evidence and I will be happy to give it the serious consideration it would deserve. As a matter of fact, I have used Southern newspapers to support my views, as I consider them a valuable source.

As an example, one such southern paper that would be considered as worthy of serious consideration, are ones that reported the South fired on Ft. Sumter. This is a proven historical fact (I give this only as one example, I am sure there might be others).

Any paper that has to do with the tariff as a cause of the war (North or South) would not be seriously considered by me after all my own research has indicated that even Southern leaders rejected this as a cause that led to war. Also, there is plenty of prewar evidence in such historical documents, such as the Congressional Globe, for one, that show this theory to be wrong.

As a matter of fact, here is a Southern newspaper, The Staunton Spectator, January 22, 1861, with a view about the tariff:

"The expense of sustaining the present government of the U.S., ranges from sixty to eighty millions of dollars per annum. This amount is raised by duties on foreign goods, inported into the country. Those persons who purchase foreign goods, pay the tax, as an element in the price of the goods, while those who buy no foreign goods, pay none of the tax. The tax is therefore voluntary, if paid."

The rest of the article spoke about how the tax would become involuntary if the South seceded, that no election would be left to the Southern people to pay it or not.

Another article from the same newspaper is one I give much serious consideration to, in this article dated October 23, 1860.

Nothing to Dread from Lincoln.
"Even though Lincoln should be elected, and should be disposed to commit some aggression upon the rights of the South, he could not do it. The Supreme Court is against the theories of his party. The Senate is against them and the Congress will be against them. There are 237 members of the House--Oregon and California send three against him, Ohio ten, Indiana four, Illinois five, Pennsylvania five, and the South eighty nine, 116 in all. We have but to elect thre other anti-Lincoln members and all is safe. New York City alone will elect six. There cannot in any event then be danger of present aggression against the South, and if conservatism and a Union spirit shall prevail in the border Southern states, we may prevent any of the other States, by reason and argument, from seceding, if Lincoln should be elected.

To break up the Government under these circumstances, simply because Lincoln should be elected, would be adding madness to treason--The danger is in the Cotton States, not in the North. The spirit of prohibition as represented by Lincoln will be impotent for mischief, but the spirit of disunion, as represented by Yancey and other extremists of the South may be potential for indescribable evils. The people should do all they can to elect Union loving conservatives, Bell and Everett, for then there would be no danger of disunion and civil war."

See MobileBoy and Alabaman, there are Southern newspapers I give considerable weight and consideration to, not just Northern ones.

Here are a few more quotes from Southern newspapers I tend to take seriously.

"Slavery is central to not only our spiritual but our national life" -- Pastoral letter of the Bishops of the Southern Episcopal Church.

"Negro Slavery is the South, and the South is Negro Slavery." - Georgia editor, 1860.

"Slavery and the cause must rise or fall together, for they are identical." - Mobile Register.

"Now what are we fighting for? We are fighting for the idea of race." - Daily Richmond Enquirer.

"Our Ideal is a PRO SLAVERY REPUBLIC." - Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist.

olerebel,

LSU printing not PC? I guess I'll just have to take my chances.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

From the book, America's Constitution; A Biography, by Akhil Reed Amar:

"Winning just under 40% of the national vote in a four-man race, Lincoln prevailed in 1860 by sweeping every free state save New Jersey and thereby capturing 180 electoral votes, compared to 123 electoral votes for the rest of the field. Even had all the popular votes cast against Lincoln gone to a single anyone-but-Abe candidate, Lincoln would still have emerged victorious thanks to his outright majorities in Northern states totaling 169 electoral votes. Still, for every two Lincoln men at the polls, three other men voted against Lincoln. America's first openly anti-slavery president could hardly claim a ringing mandate. Nor would Lincoln's new party be likely to overwhelm all others in Congress, having won only about 108 out of 237 House seats and controlling roughly 30 of the 66 Senate seats.

All these facts and figures point to a sobering conclusion: Had the Slave Power simply acquiesced in the election of 1860, nothing like immediate emancipation could ever have occurred in the 1860s. Had slavocrats continued to play the game--as they had been playing (and generally winning) it prior to 1860--they could have won or tied many more rounds in the short and intermediate run. Slavery would probably have continued for at least another half-century even had Lincoln and his new party managed to accomplish all they realistically hoped for and more in his constitutionally guaranteed four years."

Unionblue

[RebProf]

I have posted numerous quotes from Northern newspapers in which the editors of those papers said terrorism practiced by abolitionists was the cause of disunion. Here is what David S. Reynolds says:
"And so John Brown had strongly influenced the presidential race of 1860. Had he not been in the picture, the secessionists would have had difficulty getting enough Southern support to dovide the Democrats, and the contest would have most likely pitted the popular Democrat, Douglas, agsinst the controversial Republican, Seward. As it was, even the moderate Lincoln was able to win noly around forty percent of the popular vote; it can be surmised that if the divisive Seward had been the Republican candidate he would have fared even worse. It is almost cerrtain, then, that had John Brown not stirred kup the cauldron of sectional hostilities, Douglas would ahve been elected, the Union would have been preserved, and slavery would have remained in place."


To say "slavery caused the war" is misleading. The manner in which an end to slavery was attempted was the cause.

David S. Reynolds is Distinguished Professor of English and American Studies at Baruch College. His book is "John Brown, Abolitionists: The Man who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights" published by Knopf, 2005.

[unionblue]

RebProf,

"The manner in which to end slavery was attempted was the cause."

And if there had been no slavery to attempt the end of?

At least we are getting beyond the fast-fading idea it was the tariff or capitolist greed or big, interfering government.

Unionblue

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by RebProf

To say "slavery caused the war" is misleading. The manner in which an end to slavery was attempted was the cause.

That sounds a lot to me like "It was not the gunshot to the temple that killed him...it was the deficiency of oxygenated blood to the brain due to a high velocity lead projectile that was the cause of death."

Cedar